RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration of an issue

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

So, these are all good points, and just to play a little bit of a devil's 
advocate, lets focus for a second on the rationale behind allowing Councilors 
to ask for the 1 meeting delay as opposed to the action of asking for the delay.

If we can say that the same rationale that applies to voting Councilors to ask 
for a delay applies to the non-voting councilors as well, then it seems like we 
have our answer.  If, however, the same rationale does not apply, then perhaps 
a distinction can be made.

When I think of the last couple of years when a request has been made to delay 
a vote for one meeting, in my own mind I agree that the rationale would apply 
equally for voting and non-voting members.  Although we talk of just the voting 
mechanic in this e-mail string, we also use the extra meeting to get more up to 
speed on an issue so that we can more intelligently discuss the issue at the 
next Council meeting (not just vote).  This may include suggesting appropriate 
amendments, other areas of policy work, discussions of how this interacts with 
other policy efforts, etc.  Whether ultimately one votes or not on the issue is 
not indicative of the only benefits provided from the delay.

Therefore, I am coming around to Avri and Alan's viewpoint (putting aside 
whether it is a violation of the bylaws or not), and personally do not see why 
we should not make the changes proposed.

Again, this is my personal opinion, not the view of the registries or certainly 
the chair.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy



The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:47 PM
To: 'PDP-WT'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration 
of an issue


I agree with Alan and Avri.  The homeless NCA should have as much equality
with other Council members as possible.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:53 AM
To: PDP-WT
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of
consideration of an issue


Hi,

I agree with all of this except for one point.

I did not agree with the compromise and wrote  a dissenting opinion.  Even
though the group was charged with coming to full consensus, the movement to
denigrate the role of NCAs was so strong, it was decided that one NCA voice
was not enough to call it rough consensus and it was called full consensus
anyway.

Specifically from the document to be found at:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05245.html

> I cannot accept any restructuring plan that includes a reduction in Nomcom
Committee Appointee (NCA) participation. Not only do I believe it was out of
scope for this WG, I believe that doing so would have a deleterious effect
for the GNSO council and for ICANN in general and that it would run counter
to fulfillment of the core values of ICANN.

I should note, that all the way through that process I was consulting with
my fellow NCA members and was making my points with their permission and
approval.  Even though I am no longer an NCA and have become a member of a
Constituency and a SG, I still feel this way and support Alan's position.

avri

On 2 Sep 2011, at 11:15, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> I said I would kick off this discussion.
> 
> The issue at hand is the phrase (roughly) "any VOTING Council member may
request deferral of consideration of an issue for one Council meeting"
(emphasis mine). It comes up in Recommendations 115 and 37 and other places
in the text.
> 
> As an aside, I note that in at least one of the occurrences, it says that
it must be a WRITTEN request. I don't recall any discussion about that and
suspect it may be an error.
> 
> The first occurrence includes the footnote "The term „voting Council
Member‰ is intentionally used by the PDP-WT to refer to only those persons
> serving on the GNSO Council that have a vote as opposed to liaisons and
others that do not." 
> 
> I note that mentioning Liaisons here is a red herring, as Liaisons, by the
definition of the GNSO Council in the Bylaws, does not include Liaison. Not
only are Liaisons not listed when the Council members are being defined
(Article X, Section 3.1), but the following sentence makes it even more
explicit:
> 
> "Liaisons shall not be members of or entitled to vote, to make or second
motions, or to serve as an officer on the GNSO Council, but otherwise
liaisons shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of
the GNSO Council."
> 
> I believe that the inclusion of "voting" in our recommendations is in
violation of the Bylaws Article X, Section 3.1e) which states (emphasis
mine):
> 
> "three representatives selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee, one of
which shall be non-voting, but otherwise entitled to participate on equal
footing with other members of the GNSO Council including, e.g. the making
and seconding of motions and of serving as Chair if elected. One Nominating
Committee Appointee voting representative shall be assigned to each House
(as described in Section 3(8) of this Article) by the Nominating Committee."
> 
> On the chance that this argument is not sufficiently persuasive, I will
continue.
> 
> First a bit of history on the current Council structure. It was developed
by a closed WG (a conflict in terms for ICANN) that was charged by the Board
to come up with a structure acceptable to all parties within 1 month after
the Paris meeting. Avri was the only other person on that group, but my
recollection is that the closed archives were opened after the fact, so
anyone who really cares and is a real masochist could check for themselves
if I am mangling history.
> 
> The final recommendation of the group which was adopted by the Board kept
all three Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) to Council, but to put one
NCA in each house and one on the Council, but houseless (or homeless as it
has been called more recently). Since all voting is done by house, that last
NCA has no vote. One could argue that since the non-contracted house has
twice as many SG Councilors, it should also have twice as many NCA, but that
argument was not successfully made. Avri was the NCA on the WG representing
the NCAs. I was there as ALAC Liaison, but since I was a NomCom appointee to
the ALAC, I was similarly tainted. We reluctantly accepted this compromise,
but it must be understood that this was under considerable pressure from
some WG members who REALLY wanted to see ZERO NCAa on Council.
> 
> So we accepted it and that is now history. To use the lexicon of Orwell's
Animal Farm, we now had a situation of All Councillor were equal, but some
were more equal than others. It dawned on me when I was thinking about this
note that it would be completely impossible to conceive of one of the SG
accepting that one of their three or six Councillors would forego their
vote. 
> 
> The origin of the current wording in our report (I *think*) is that we
first started talking about a deferral request coming from a SG to give the
SG time to deliberate, and not from the Councillor personally. That would
have taken the privilege from all NCAs. But on reconsideration, I think (but
I suspect I missed a meeting because I am a bit vague on this) it was
decided that this was a personal request. I find that quite reasonable,
since it is not only the vote that is critical, but the DISCUSSION. All the
more so since several SGs allow their councillors to vote their conscience
and do not bind them.
> 
> I don't know when the concept of voting councillors came in, but I know I
found it objectionable. It takes yet another privilege from the homeless
NCA, and without any real justification, or any real benefit to Council. It
means that this NCA may be denied the right to meaningfully partake in the
debate on an issue, and debate is the ONLY tool that this person has. 
> 
> I strongly suggest removing the word VOTING from all of the occurrences.
It has no subtle side-effects as the footnote mentioned above implies. It
simple serves to give the homeless the same right as all 20 other
Councillors, and removes a new, seemingly mean-spirited, insult to the
injury already caused by the new Council structure.
> 
> If the WG feels that SOME restriction must be added, then I suggest it be
restricted to Council members who are allowed to make motions, as this is
pretty close to a motion (one that does not require a vote to be accepted).
> 
> Alan